Guns in the Sun

2013, Politics  -   279 Comments
Storyline

After so many recent mass shootings, VICE decided to travel to Florida to see why so many Americans are stockpiling firearms.

Weeks before the almost unfathomable mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, VICE editor-in-chief Rocco Castoro visited Florida to dive headfirst into its byzantine firearms laws and discover why his home state was the first in the nation to issue over one million concealed weapons permits.

Through interviews and time on the range with veterans, law enforcement officials, and gun-store owners, VICE digs deep into the gun debate and uncovers many troubling revelations along the way.

Oh, they also use a Craigslist-like site to arrange for the purchase of a handgun at 10 PM in the parking lot of a big-box hardware store. And it's all 100-percent legal. Welcome to Florida. They will shoot you dead and it'll probably be legal.

192
5.69
12345678910
Ratings: 5.69/10from 29 users.

More great documentaries

279 Comments / User Reviews

  1. It amazed me and frankly, it disgusts me to hear so many commenters on here talk as if they are slaves to the state. I simply don't understand the mentality that people have that allowed them to think the "authorities" are able to protect them. Instead of working through a simple thought experiment and concluding that the only person with a vested interest in protecting you and/or your family is YOU. The US Supreme Court ruled years ago that this nations law enforcement agencies have absolutely no obligation to protect you from evil and mentally deranged people that wish to do you harm. Occam's Razor should be applied as the first step in trying to solve any problem. let me ask, is it easier and more realistic for a individual to conclude that there are bad people in this world that wish to harm others and they will utilize whatever means necessary. Then for that person to take the next logical step where they choose in favor of NOT being a victim and get training and learn how to defend themselves with the most readily available tool. Yes a gun! OR, is it easier for a government to turn millions into instant felons by institution more laws when they don't even enforce the laws they currently have. Add to this train wreck salad we call beuracracy some sort of buy back aka confiscation of personal property scheme and you can stop the thought experiment there.
    PEOPLE, start taking personal responsibility for yourselfs. Quit placing completely false expectations on your governments to protect you. Remember that these are the people that have proven time and time again that they can't do anything well except over spend your money and then blame you for their excesses. We MUST stop being mental slaves. Here early in the 21st Century we are on the verge of losing any sense of what the word Liberty means. Ask yourself right now. Are you truly free? Really? What things can you do in life where you don't have to ask your slave masters for permission first? Stop. If you really stop and think, about everything you do. At some pint in any one of those activities that you have come to believe as an activity of Liberty will always have some government attachment to them even if only in the perifery. When will we begin to remember that the most revolutionary and evolutionary time period of human enlightenment came when there was a paucity of government intrusion and at the opposite end there was a a near maximum amount of human liberty. Liberty is the key to human advancement folks. Start thinking like a free people again!

  2. For your information the Shooting at Sandy Hook was a "False Flag" operation staged to demonize the gun and cause more legislation against guns. All these so called "terrorist" acts are "False Flags" created by some of the most horrible people on earth!

    1. i heard about it being false but where can i find this information

    2. Are you being facetious, or are you and actual stupid person?

    3. No you should do a little research. I don't mean that in a condescending way. I was shocked but the evidence is incredibly compelling that no kids were actually killed. Google it and see what you find.

  3. Sadly the true culprit psychotropic pharms are not being scrutinized greatly enough most gun crime that is non-gang related usually has some form of psychotropic involved do your own research if you don't believe me. compare america's addiction to psychotropics and other gun cultured nations and the truth becomes evident

    1. One thing that these shootings all seem to have in common is firearms. Someone should scrutinize our weak gun laws and regulations.

  4. After flicking through the comments all i see is a load of bigoted nonsense (from both sides). Why go into so much detail about an issue which is so simple?

    - Many countries are perfectly safe without guns
    -Guns result in the deaths of many innocent people.
    -Guns don't contribute enough to economic development to account for the economic loss from those deaths so it is ridiculous to compare them to other lead sources of deaths (such as cars), which make up for their dangers by making society far more productive and efficient.
    -Guns are mainly carried to protect from other people with guns, if guns were outlawed your chances of meeting another person with a firearm are going to be reduced significantly. Why should 30 people die just so you (1 person) can defend yourself in an unlikely case of an attack, that's called selfishness.
    -If you go somewhere with dangerous animals or other unlikely dangers that is your choice and responsibility and not an excuse to allow the deaths of many innocent children. There are plenty of safe activities you can do that you don't require a gun to defend yourself. Again if you value your own entertainment over the lives of many people then that is selfish.

    Who cares what guns are for, why they were introduced etc. It really should be only about the facts and the fact is that they are leading to many unnecessary deaths and not saving enough lives (within the US) to account for that.

    As with religions, this is just another form of brainwashing, it is just a shame that the religious brainwashing in America that states Jesus taught people to be as selfless as possible isn't for some reason considered as important as this. Do you think Jesus would support owning guns? Of course not, there is no question about it, supporting gun laws is about as selfish as you can get.

    Now watch the brainwashed people avoid my points and talk selfishly about how THEY want guns because its good for THEM and THEY want to defend THEMSELVES. Spare a thought for all those dead children while your at it!

    1. Your last paragraph implies anybody with a gun will go on a mass murder spree, and that's just illogical.

    2. My last paragraph has nothing to do with that so assume you are replying to another comment, however, to referece your point, although not everyone with a gun WILL go on a mass killing spree, everyone with a gun CAN go on a mass killing spree, you can't deny that. Do you really think that its a good idea to give people this opportunity so freely and easily? Surely we should be trying out best to make it as hard as possible to make it so that people CAN go on a mass killing spree, even if they might not necessarily do it? Do you also think i should be able to go to a store and buy a bazooka or grenade launcher? Not everyone that buys them would necessarily go on a mass killing spree so by your 'logic' there is no harm in selling them.

      I suggest you read my entire post and then rethink your opinion about such a selfish proposal.

    3. Anyone who would be willing to murder someone using a firearm is the type of person who would acquire a firearm through illegal means. Gun control is an illusion. The criminals who want to use them already own them. No matter what government regulations say, they aren't very likely to give them up voluntarily. All gun control does is make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase use them for hunting, sport shooting, etc. You mention there are safer activities for someone to do. That's a fact. But if someone enjoys shooting, who are you to say they shouldn't do it because of the potential danger. It's dangerous every single time you get behind the wheel of a car. Should I suggest you walk everywhere? OF COURSE no one values entertainment more than human lives.

      I respect the point of view of those who say guns are dangerous. They certainly can be in the hands of someone who doesn't understand them. But, swimming pools also kill children. No one is talking about controlling pools at all. Come to think of it, any object can kill a child, potentially. Not a whole lot of items at Toys R Us are getting attacked as much as guns do.

      Look, I really really understand your point. It's sad when people die, especially children. But honestly, guns do not kill people. They can't. People kill people, either on purpose or accidentally. Accidents will happen. Again, it's sad but reality. As far as people who kill on purpose, they will be doing that no matter how many laws we pass against acquisition of firearms.

    4. just replace all references to "guns" with "nuclear weapons" and voila. you have just justified allowing everyone to have nuclear bombs. Do you feel safer now?
      Also cars and swimming pools are heavily regulated. and in many cases they have more regulation and supervision than guns. The main purpose of these things isn't to kill but they are still controlled

    5. Nuclear weapons and guns are completely different things other than they can both potentially kill people. Might as well also replace all references to "guns" with "giant polar bears on pcp" if we are going to play that game.

      I own a car and also used to own a swimming pool. I understand they are regulated, but i wouldn't use the word "heavily". A public pool might have more regulation and supervision than the average firearm but not a private one.

      Furthermore, the main purpose of most guns owned by non-military and non-law enforcement individuals is also not to kill people.

      I guess my main point, which really cannot be argued is that people who WANT to kill people will be able to get a gun no matter how many rules are imposed.

    6. I never said said that the main purpose of guns is to " kill people" even though that is debatable. The regulations purposed tend to not affect hunting guns. The main purpose as i stated is to "kill". thanks for putting words in my mouth. Yes you are right if you are motivated enough to kill someone you have a high percentage of success regardless of regulations. But the same can be said for everything that is regulated. That doesn't mean that there should not be sensible regulations of things.

      As for "giant polar bears on pcp" if that was a problem and then it would be regulated. my analogy was fair. i do not know where you live. But where i live permits/assessments and permissions are required for a pool. not only that but there are many regulations and laws regarding safety involved in getting a pool. If you want a gun designed for hunting or target practice then fine. But any hunter or hobby shooter that requires a high capacity magazine, semi/full automatic, easily concealable and military variant gun to perform these tasks is not skilled enough to have the privilege of owning a gun. as for a home invasion (i know you did not bring it up ) a shotgun will outperform most alternatives in that situation. i am not anti gun. I am anti over compensation

    7. When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government..

  5. I am glad real people are stockpiling, Japan refused to invade with ground troops just for that reason. Maybe our private bank owned government will have the same fear.

  6. while the theism/atheism debate is fun lets try to stay on topic or move the conversation to an appropriate doc

    1. I don't think the you said, no you said, has been all that enlightening either. Perhaps entertaining, in a car-wreck kind of way...

  7. Once again, let me take you through it since logic appears to fail you, or rather you fail it. Nice try though.

    Atheists are in disbelief that a god exists. True. But they are not in disbelief that a god doesn't exist. In fact, they believe that they don't.

    Ask any atheist whether or not god exists, and they will tell you "no." They won't say, "I don't know because there is no evidence that a god exists."

    As evidence cannot be gathered on that matter, it is belief without proof.

    Agnostics believe that it cannot be proven. And as you noted, there are various shades of grey within that.

    All of the other things your reductio ad absurdum argument states have evidence to the contrary. There are prior experiences, things that can be deduced from other things, written history, etc. I suppose one could ignore the evidence and believe such things. There are Holocaust deniers.

    I would imagine that to most people, the connotation of faith is slightly different than the denotation. I would imagine evidence of any kind would be enough to banish the faith argument. But in terms of god existing, there can be absolutely no proof OR evidence either way. So picking a side is picking based on faith.

    One could argue as you have done that there is no proof of anything because anything is likely. Once could argue that when I go to start my car, I have faith that it will start, because it is just as likely that it won't. I tend to take a far more reasonable view than play mind games with myself about it all day.

    Good luck with your next fill up, I hear that there can be rattlesnakes in there.

    1. you set a double standard of absurdity. there is no greater or lesser absurdity in the notion of a moon of green cheese, as opposed to a deity. neither have any support in reality, only in folklore. the polka dancing fairy is equally supported by evidence as yahweh is. i am indeed an atheist, and i can assure you if evidence of the existence of a deity was found, i would have no more or less trouble accepting that existence than the existence of bacteria that feed on nylon. as it stands, i place deities in the same category as polka dancing fairies, as equal evidence supports both claims. if i were to see a polka dancing fairy move in next door tomorrow, and others could repeatably demonstrate it's existence as well, then i would firmly believe in the existence of polka dancing fairies. however, without the evidence, is it reasonable to believe in a polka dancing fairy, even if told they are both invisible and non-corporeal? a claim is not made more reasonable by using unreasonable claims to justify it.

      you scoff at the idea of the rattlesnake behind the fuel cap, yet that idea is much more supported by foundational facts than the existence of a deity. on a very hot day in rattler country, flipping over a stone that you know covers a cylindrical hole in the ground is VERY likely to reveal a rattler. other obvious facts just as obviously disprove the likelihood of a rattler lurking behind your gas cap, but at least a couple of facts related to rattlers lend the idea minimal credibility. does any such foundation (no matter how weak) support the existence of a deity? if rejection of the more supported idea is "common sense", then how is rejection of the completely unsupported idea "an act of faith"?

    2. If such a thing as a polka dancing fairy existed for us to find, evidence could be gathered to support it. Perhaps it is belief that such a thing does not exist, and faith since there is no evidence to support it.

      However, evidence for whether a god exists or not is impossible to find or determine, and thus it is always based on faith.

      I understand your point. Without any evidence it is not simply faith to believe something doesn't exist because there is no evidence that such a thing exists or could ever exist.

      However, since such things may indeed exist, it is still only faith until some evidence can be found. In the case of the rattler, one can test that theory at their own peril by opening the gas tank. One can go to the moon.

      I have faith that there's no polka dancing fairy.

    3. Sorry, you are just wrong.

      Atheists do not "believe" there is no god, they do not "have faith" there is no god; their claim is that there is no evidence of a god and since it can't be proved that there is or isn't a god, the lack of evidence to the existence of a god points to the answer. I have never seen a zebra, perhaps, but there is plenty of evidence that they exist. I don't have faith they exist, I know they do.

      I have also seen evidence of the damage unloaded guns can do. During my first year in high school, a grade school friend of mine, playing with an "unloaded" shotgun, killed his cousin and badly wounded his sister.

      A few years ago, a friend's father, on a hunting trip out west with that son, shot himself in the leg.

      Thankfully, that was only one dead and two wounded by "unloaded" guns.

    4. I would claim there is no such thing as a fairy or leprechaun either simply because no evidence for such an existence has ever been brought forth, same deal with god. An Agnostic is someone who says I cant disprove its existence so I will remain undecided, a rather poor stance to take. Personally I prefer Anti-theist as it more accurately describes ones views on superstition in its entirety. Another reason to support individual liberty and limited government is as with religion in which individuals are divided into the saved and the dammed (to varying degrees) just as a powerful government will divide its people into the loyal and the traitors (Snowden and the nsa comes to mind here). Reality is always better than superstition, whether that's in discovering the mysteries of the cosmos or in governing our society and self defense is a cornerstone of any functioning republic, especially defense from ones own government.

    5. Agnostics don't believe it can not be proven. An agnostic understand that by our very nature, the nature of life, time and circumstance, nothing is ever certain. We neither believe or disbelieve simply because "it" can never be known.

  8. OMG. Jim Jeffries is hilarious!

  9. One million permits in Florida allowing one to carry a concealed weapon. I wonder how many of those permits are held by individuals engaged in criminal activities and have yet to be caught. They can now legally carry a weapon to facilitate their illegal activities. Gang enforcers, without criminal records, could form a posse, walk around with handguns and terrorize people, and do it under the protection of the law as long as there is no official record of wrong doing. Am I the only one who sees the insanity of this idea?

    1. honestly, Jack, that really isn't a factor. not in current practice, at least. the more realistic danger is "ammo muscles". the bitter ineffectual middle-aged herb that becomes "the sword of justice" after that permit comes in the mail. we had one gun down a teen a few weeks ago for his loud sound system at a gas station. everybody on earth has heard of zimmerman. every couple of months an example makes the news. sometimes it's "road rage" inspired, sometimes it's "defending" their property from a fleeing burglar, sometimes just "bad blood" escalating after emboldening. the VAST majority of those with criminal intent manage to get themselves convicted of something that precludes the permit long before their 21st birthday. i have little doubt there have to be SOME permit holders who use them as a cover for criminality, but the numbers must be incredibly low, because such a scenario NEVER gets reported.

    2. I was also thinking of organized crime. Hoods carrying weapons legally, looking for protection money, and can't be touched because their victims are too frightened to say anything (for good reason, too). If accosted by a police officer, they just produce their permit and they're on their way. They've carried handguns illegally for decades. A permit would make their job easier and a mafia type associate with a gun permit might become a highly prized employee.

      Years ago, I spent the winter in Florida. In two and a half months there, I saw more handguns than I have seen in the sixty plus years living in Canada. In every case where I was a witness to someone with a handgun, one theme kept recurring. That theme was that the one possessing the gun was ready to use it if anyone dared to mess with him. The gun had only one purpose...to kill another human being if necessary.

      I worked as a bartender for over ten years. I have had reason to refuse service to intoxicated patrons and have to deal with violent reactions. I have been told by angry and frustrated drunks that they were going home to get their shotgun and returning to blow my "flippin" head off. None have ever returned. One guy actually stole a truck after I physically had to expel him from the bar. He ran it off the road and ended in the hospital. I often wonder what would have happened if these patrons had access to guns like they do in Florida or anywhere else in the States for that manner. I'm glad I live in a country where we don't have to deal with gun totting citizens as a normal routine. Every confrontation in the States has the strong possibility of ending in disaster. The perception of danger can be just as strong an incentive to shoot as the reality of danger. "I thought he was going for his gun. I didn't know he wasn't armed. Who walks around without a gun, these days." In a state of twenty million with one million of them with permits to carry a gun and who knows how many carry one illegally this is getting to be the norm there rather than the extreme, almost unheard of, exception in Canada.

      Almost everyone in Canada thinks that the American gun laws are absolutely crazy. We had 556 homicides in Canada last year... in total. The United States had over 11000 by guns alone. If that doesn't bother Americans, what does?

    3. oh, i don't doubt that such a scenario happens, but it also happened when only the "connected" could get carry permits. my point is it really has not been a perceptible problem that is prevalent enough to actually impact the debate.
      our carry law in florida forbids carry in bars, or any "hospitality" venue that derives more than 50% of its revenue from sales of alcohol. same with school sporting events. when the carry statute was written, the legislators at least attempted to address the dangers of "packing heat" where adrenalin and alky tend to flow, lol.
      i was avoiding wading into "the debate" on this topic because i see arguments that back up both camps, as well as outright falsehoods spread by both sides (often out of ignorance of fact, rather than ill intent). i only offered up my voice now because i live in the state in question, and actually pay attention to "fine print" news stories (the page 15 of the "local" section stuff). my only point was that circumstance really hasn't appeared to be a problem, in this locale, as of yet. i had no intent to confirm or condemn either position in the debate, but felt it worthwhile to offer up "eyewitness testimony" for as little as that is worth, lol

    4. Plaxico Burress wasn't supposed to have a gun either. Luckily he shot himself and no one else. Greater accessibility to guns will allow the those who are out of control a better opportunity to act this foolish or to shoot someone for an irrational reason. I suppose that same accessibility would allow me to shoot him after he has shot someone else. A great idea. Allow me the right to own a gun so I can shoot someone who has shot someone else with a gun legally allowed by law. A law that allows me to protect myself from the people that the law allows to carry a weapon... of course, from those who aren't allowed to either. There is a circular logic here that defies my sense of logic. I can only wonder how people got along before the gun was invented. Oh yeah...I live in Canada. We already kind of live under those conditions.

      If those guns were impossible to get, I would think that I would not need a gun to protect myself from the gun totters. Actually, in over sixty years, I have never been in a situation where a gun would have been necessary to defend myself. I don't think I know anyone who has.

      I know what you mean about taking a stance. I have done so in the past and have been addressed by a few angry individuals. Just suggesting gun control drives some people wild with rage.

    5. i tend not to cleave to absolutes, nor do i abandon reality to defend my ideal. my "ideal" would encompass a right for one to responsibly possess pretty much anything one has the desire to own. for such a right to be universal, without imperiling all, would require a society of intelligent, rational, civic minded, responsible people. i honestly think, on many levels, america fails all those preconditions.

      i also have to admit the much vaunted "right" was long ago diluted to a system of permissions. reality insists that one face the fact that the federal government ALREADY has the final word on whether one is permitted to own any arms, what manner of arms the individual may own, and to require both registration and taxation of "restricted ownership" classes of arms. the supreme court has backed up that state of affairs for quite a while now (closing on 80 years), so it is indeed "constitutional".

      i think the real "problem" is systemic lack of responsible behavior, from top to bottom. in our recent rash of tragic murders (say over a decade or so), there were opportunities for the tragedy to have been prevented. courts, educational institutions, mental health professionals, law enforcement agencies, firearms dealers, and parents had various levels of irresponsibility. no firearms dealer should ever have put a gun in the hands of laughner, no matter what the background check result was. that guy was an obvious basket case, by ALL accounts. adam lanza would be completely unknown to us, and those 20 kids would still be alive, if his mother had been even remotely responsible, because she alone gave her mentally unbalanced son access to firearms of any kind. laughner had previous run ins with the law dismissed due to his mental state, to spare the county the expense of any mental health evaluation and treatment. holmes was "too disturbing in behavior" to be allowed to continue his studies, but not enough for the educators and MH professionals to feel a need to prevent realization of the homicidal ideas he admitted to. one must make note that the columbine massacre occurred using arms that were 100% compliant with the "assault weapons ban" that was in effect, and took place on a campus with armed security. neither fact lessened the carnage.

      as to the point of any particular type of arm being more malevolent than others, i see points in both arguments. as general classes of machine, there is little difference between a remington 7400 sporting semi-auto rifle and a h&k91 "clone" of the g-3 rifle. but if the examination is more in-depth, differences become apparent. though both can hang a 20 rd box magazine that uses the same cartridge, the ones that would fit the remi are an ultra-expensive rarity(that due to mechanical limitations of the rifle design, tend to be unreliable), the g-3 was common enough that a surplus magazine of that capacity could be had for less than 5 bucks apiece from HUNDREDS of internet suppliers. when we switch to the rounds the ar-15 or akm clones fire (the "assault rifle" cartridges), we are faced with an interesting fact. there are NO semi-automatic rifles of sporting origins that fire those rounds. there are sporting adaptations of military designs (the ruger mini 14, the saiga sporting rifles), there are arms that were designed for the civilian "black rifle" market that often interchange some parts with the "evil rifles", but there are no purpose built hunting or target original designs, though both rounds have existed for a half century or more, and sporting semi-automatic rifles pre-date military ones. it doesn't make them "evil" of course, but it negates the argument of "there are compliant arms of equivalence".

    6. Florida's rate of revocation is .3%. It's similar in most other states. I believe that number comes from the Attorney General's office. There's a similar number in the excellent Wisconsin Policy Research Institute study.

      There's not much of a point to get a license as a criminal. No one has ever asked me to see a permit. And that includes cops that have pulled me over to whom I disclosed that I had a gun with me.

  10. Sweet Jesus. It does not matter who owns the gun. Now just so you'll understand what I'm talking about when I say I'm quoting you. Here are two statements quoted verbatim and I am not twisting anything here.

    Statement one: "It (the gun- my clarification) was owned in 65%.

    Statement two: "I don't know if it was 65% of those who killed themselves via a gun owned the gun or if the figure was for all suicides of any type."
    Now both statements cannot be true.
    And you say I'm twisting words? Show me.

    Now on top of that you are throwing out "facts" without citing your source.

    Now I'll make a deal with you. Stop demanding citations when you don't give citations, make a statement without conflicting facts, and quit calling people liars without any evidence ("I highly doubt you read the actual study") and I might tell you exactly where to find the study.

    1. Car death stats. were talked about earlier, did he ask who owned the car in the car deaths? Ownership is really besides the point isn't it, it's the deaths overall, as you said. :)

    2. First, why have you stopped replying to me? So I wouldn't notice?

      Second, statement two clarifies the first. I was skimming a study looking for your figures. The table showed that 65% of the guns used in suicide were owned by the person who committed suicide. I don't know if that figure was only for those who committed suicide by gun or for all suicides.

      Third, I have cited sources everywhere I've given a figure. In this case I wasn't presenting a source, I merely was commenting on the fact that I couldn't find your figure listed anywhere amongst the studies Harvard had on their site.

      Fourth, stop playing games. Stop playing dumb (like asking things like isn't a mass shooting a crime? Then how can you stop a shooting and not a crime?). Show what evidence you have. It's been three volleys with this and you still haven't presented a study. So I'll call you a liar until you prove me wrong.

      If your next reply doesn't have directions to this study. I'm going to stop wasting my time with you.

    3. I stopped replying to give the matter a little thought. Such a silly and unproductive discussion you and I are having. Obviously you and I have differing thoughts about guns and gun ownership but that doesn't mean we have to act like a couple of talking heads.

      I apologize.

    4. Indeed. I apologize as well.

  11. Often they leave weapons in the trunk? What in God's name does that mean?

    So because I'm calling bullsh*t on you that makes me a troll. Typical.

    1. No. I'm not calling you a troll for that. That was the best you had. Often shooters leave additional weapons in their vehicles. Most shooters also kill more than two people.

      Anyway.

      I'm calling you a troll because you are twisting English. Obviously mass shooting is a crime. It's actually MULTIPLE crimes. You can stop the subsequent crimes—and thus the shooting—but you can't stop the first one. That's the point.

      I'm typical? No, typical is the type of people who want to play word games and act dumb rather than talking about actual facts.

    2. I posted some other links here, but they have to be moderated. In the mean time, you can look up the crime stopped in College Park, GA. Though someone was injured in crossfire, they survived. You can also look up the Golden Food Market shooting in the Richmond Times Dispatch.

  12. Gun control is like trying to ban religion will never happen...mental illness is where the problem is and lot more money should be spent on that than any thing , that way we can find out why people believe in some form of God, gamble, beat their partner. fraud, psychopathia's and politicians.

  13. If you want to seriously discuss natural rights and freedoms, have a look at this first. I hope the site will allow this.

    you tube dot com/course?list=EC30C13C91CFFEFEA6

    Aternate: justiceharvard dot org

    Justice with Michael Sandel, about 19 hours of philosophy on what are such rights and freedoms. Absolutely fabulous stuff. It is said that the professor is the model for Montgomery Burns! He is very good and really gets the students involved and gets them to make the discussion - he does not preach his philosophy, but nudges the students. Try one at least.

  14. What are the odds of having a gun pointed at you in a home invasion? The invader generally wants to avoid people in the home, logically, so I'd say the odds are very low unless you have seriously pi$$ed somebody off. That is a different circumstance altogether.

    What are the odds of you confronting the home invader and beating him to the draw? Remember, although the chances of this happening are low, IMO, he may have come prepared with a weapon, although I'd say the odds on that are also low. I'd have to say the armed invader has the upper hand and the better odds of shooting you before you shoot him.

    If you say you keep your gun by your bedside for easy access, I'd say you had better live alone or you have just put your family in extreme risk of being shot by friendly fire. The odds of a gun tragedy in the home of a gun owner is higher than that of the home with no gun. I can say that is common sense, at least. I do believe stats will back that up, but stats are a funny thing, so I'll just go with common sense.

    This debate has mostly been around what guns should be banned and which not. I will not argue against someone having a gun in their home for safety (though I think if is a false sense of safety), but I will not ever agree with concealed carry, which was passed in my state last year. I do not want any civilian "help" with their trusty sidearms putting me or others in danger.

    Commentary: Do you (anyone) think that these people that are responsible for mass shootings/killings are lazy serial killers? That's the trouble with today's citizens - too lazy to do any decent planning and execution. They want to get it all done in one incident, lazy ba$tard$. JK, a little.

  15. I can understand busy, but that shouldn't take long since "you don't see those reported." I'll look that one up - you said the principal "detained" the shooter.

    The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol from his truck and, spotting him near the parking lot, shouted for Woodham to stop. Woodham instead got into his mother's car and tried to escape. Myrick, a U.S. Army Reserve commander, detained Woodham until authorities arrived.

    That's one, sort of. Hardly an regular citizen. Didn't have his gun on him, either. I suppose you call that a victory for gun owners.

  16. So two were killed and seven shot. Sounds to me as if the armed citizen did not stop a mass shooting, after all 9 people were shot en masse.

    1. That was apparently below the minimum and acceptable number of 8 killed, remember?

  17. LESSON (Positive Side): You SURELY don't want to attack the USA. Almost every civilian has a gun already and has been practicing a lot with it. Even before the military distributes weapons in case of an emergency, the civilians are already armed for you! Don't forget that most people whether professors, doctors & nurses, drivers, engineers, beggars, pastors, seniors & retirees etc are already some kind of freaking war veteran from Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq and all other US military posts around the world from land, sea, air and space!

  18. To get your firearms license here in Aus, you have to complete a safety lecture and questions (takes an afternoon) , and also have a police check done. If you've had violence charges in the last 5 years you're not going to get a license, it's apparently up to the discretion of the police minister after the 5 years.
    To purchase a firearm, you have to have a permit for that exact weapon, including it's serial number ect. (if no number, one will be 'assigned' to it) and it's sale is recorded.

    If you're even accused of assault here (not using any guns), you automatically loose your firearms license, and even if you're proven innocent it's still up to the police minister if you get your license back or not.

    So yeah, it cost me a few extra $ at the the start to have a police check done. And I have to not 'smack idi*ts' at the pub ect, or I'll loose it. I don't have a problem with my background being checked and evaluated to check if I'm considered sensible and safe enough. I don't have a problem with my law enforcement knowing what firearms I own. I can't legally get assault weapons, but I don't need them. For target shooting and hunting, I have enough of a choice of firearms to do the job effectively.

    I'm amused at twits like Nwttp that talk about rights to defend themselves, armed rebellion ect, but then says he doesn't even own a BB gun. Assault weapons are designed for one purpose, to kill people. Those are not needed in any decent society outside of the military and law enforcement.

  19. What should be addressed is the lack of effeciency in the "Assault Arms" control. I mean the wording within the regulation.
    No doubt that there are those 30+ Y/O recognized arm collectors who shouldn't bothered about their "Rights".

    In the end, did the mandatory arm registration prevented the lost of one life?
    The law exist but the autority doesn't appear to know how to use it.
    Anyone shows up in a fire arm dealer? If he/she is alone, no sale!
    Bring your mum, your sis, dad of bro or sis in law and make sure that she or he has a few ID cards with him to that he/she adds his, her singnature.
    Is it to point where one needs a mental heath checkup in order to get a rifle to hunt deers with a semi-automatic? Geezus?
    In a conterpart, a close relative wouldn't sign for a "Weirdoo".
    Would you if you'd know that your nephew is a bit weird and that he lives sort of a "Secluded" life? I know I wouldn't.

    One thing classified for the brand new arms.
    Then, make the sale of an second hand fire arm a criminal offrence if done without proper identification. It wouldn't cost a cent to the Gov. but rather bring money in to be redistribute the communities!

    Oh Misery! I must have forgotten that the "Elites" never, ever share!
    Bwarff! Sorry for the "Essay" :-))

  20. These gunslingers always remind me of "Rocky Racoon" with The Beatles :-)
    (yes, it is on youtube)

    1. But Daniel was hot he drew first and shot.

  21. amok shootings are taking place in countries where gun control is unbelievable harsh (like germany,just to mention one) & i belive the common denominator is social alienation via aggressive marketing coupled with a horrific array of games & films cultivating the belief where the outsiders,rejected & weirdos (anyone that doesn't fill the norm is open to mobbing) can punish those by copying the loner who fights for revenge which is a classic american film stereotype.

  22. most of the world does not allow there citizens to own guns, just shows what a violent nation America is

    1. Are you sure it's most countries? I think you'll find you're wrong, check out 'number of guns per capita' on wiki mate.
      The US does have by far the most per capita though.

  23. A firearm is a necessary tool on many types of farms. Not everyone is a vegetarian, and not everyone buys all of their meat.
    There are professional shooters that make a living culling/controlling pest animals here in Australia.
    There is also the sport of shooting, (target, claybird ect) which if properly supervised is a safe sport. (on a side note, its one of the few sports I can think of that men and women can compete in as true equals, strength isn't a factor)
    Those are some examples where when used properly, firearms are useful, even necessary. None of those examples require an assault weapon with large clips.

    Grumpy mentioned the knee-jerk reaction our government had a few years ago to a horrific mass shooting. As Grumpy said, the only guns that were handed in were from law abiding, licensed owners. The info at the time also revealed that the vast majority of the violent uses of firearms were from illegally obtained guns, so just buying firearms back off decent people didn't do very much, other then waste $$ and score political points.

    The problem wasn't legal licensed guns, (we didn't have many assault type weapons around) it was the one's that were either imported illegally, or stolen. Instead of spending all that money the government did to have little result, they could have had a much more real effect, by bringing in better checks on gun storage and lock up. There are laws on how your firearms are supposed to be in a safe ect, but unless you have the police over for other reasons, it's not checked. Better storage law enforcement, would have the effect of less being stolen and getting into the wrong hands. I've been on many farms where the gun is behind a door somewhere, not locked in the safe.

  24. This argument of having semi automatic rifles for home protection is ridiculous. This isn't call of duty, this isn't a video game where you take on a whole army with a single soldier. As wald0 said, this is your hobby, what use does anybody have with these types of weapons other making your balls feel three times bigger or killing large amounts of people in one setting. And again, if an army comes up to your house with 15 militants, are you going to take them all out? Negative, you're dead if you try. People need to get off the video games and get into real life. If anybody needed these types of weapons they would be part of our military. If not, they'd be planning to kill unsuspecting unarmed people by the handful. And if you think that you live in a crappy neighborhood in which you have to defend yourself and family with violent tactics.. MOVE. It's just like watching "doomsday preppers" and seeing all those idiots worried about city collapse and riots. Making a bugout location to escape to. If your that scared of cities and people, move, plain and simple. And for the record I don't think all guns should be limited, and I'd be willing to listen to a good reason to give civilians mass murder weapons if there was one. But, it's your paranoid hobby that keeps mass shootings in our newspapers.

  25. Through movies, John Wayne and Clint Eastwood had a huge impact on America.
    1i

  26. Bizzaro Marshal Law????? Only the most dangerous and prevalent threat to mankind in the 20th and now 21st century... What was this piece supposed to be? I'll leave it with the classification of another easy hit and run number lacking as always the vital data to give a viewer the ability to at all draw an informed opinion.

  27. It will take a heck of an effort to disarm America. An effort comparable to abolitionism. In fact, in took a civil war to disarm the samurais in Japan in the dawn of the meiji era. But it's unlikely (rather impossible) a civil war taking place over this issue in the US, therefore IMO aside some minor regulations the big picture won't change at all ever.

  28. Government hijacked by Banksters watch documentaries Zeitgeist and 911 Mysteries. They killed 3000 americans in controlled demolition in WTC and know they tell me they want to protect one us form criminals.
    Government are #1 terrorist and criminal and I need protection from them.
    Stalin, Mao and Hitler first think they have done before start killing people in death camps they confiscated guns from people. So learn history and wake
    up. 2nd Amendment of US Constitution "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - What part of "shall not" u do not understand?

  29. No guns for me. One American - how many will join me?

    Militia - take on the government - I dare you. Don't tell me you are fighting for my rights - if you were, we wouldn't have a Patriot Act.

    Protection - bs.

    Hunting - fine, pick up your gun at the armory and check it out for the day.

  30. watch documentary "Innocents betrayed" if u do not understand why Americans love guns.
    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

    1. There are two important questions that the pro-gun lobby seems to overlook. 1. From whence is the tyranny coming? 2. Will guns be a deterrent? I believe the tyranny is already upon us (and always been to a degree) and no bullet can stop it. While you're guarding the front door, the invisible hand of tyranny is turning you into an instrument for their own propagation.

    2. Don't know why no one else understands this. Kinda hard to protect against tyranny when they finally take away everything but single shot .22 pistols.

    3. a) Your country is already run by private corporations.
      b) it was viable argument when ppl used muskets
      c) assault weapons are no good against tanks, nucs and other toys your military has.
      maybe its you who is lost?

    4. Nailed it.

    5. LOL. My God he did not. Think about it a little bit. Read some retorts first, do some research, actually have been to the U.S(cause he hasn't, I certainly don't go around telling Canadians what they should do, other than maybe "Don't tread on my freedom no matter where you live") before you say something so clearly false.

    6. Not one word of anything he said was false.
      It's a shame you can't see it.

    7. Our country huh? Maybe stick to what you know and you won't sound so uneducated. However you're first statement was correct. Others are... not thought out opinion. Tanks can't run without sheep, If me and the two other free thinkers can wake up our population maybe we can win. A tank without operators is a big hunk of metal. A government without sheep is a small percentage of us. Unfortunately people like you, who want nothing more than someone else to run their lives, are the norm.

      If everyone thought like you, we'd still be living in caves.

  31. the dealer impressed me. i like his emphasis on the ability to "decline for any reason" a sale, and the fact that he actually used it, even if just for a "feeling". that guy would have declined the sale to both laughner, and holmes, i'll bet. overall a VERY evenhanded "expose lite". no real agenda pushing, just a factual "hipster" view of a current event talking point.

  32. hi dew,how's life treating you?hope all is well with you & your family.oh,just to stay on topic:vice doc's are always worth a snoop.

    1. All is well in my little world, I hope the same for yours ;) On the whole, vice docs are good. They don't pretend to be anything more than they are, they make you look, make you stare, make you lose your underwear... Maybe not that last bit, still cold up north isn't it :)

    2. cheers dew,made me smile as i pictured my 'undies' flying of me 'bum'
      whilst enjoying this 'excellent piece of journalistic art work,conjured up by the utmost integer editorial scribes ' & not hipsters as many claim (remember:TOPIC).best wishes..............................d.

  33. We could do without this kind of crap "documentary".

    1. I don't know about that, even the naff ones can start good conversations sometimes :)

  34. freedom is a double-edged gun (sword,actually,but the quote has to fit the times).

  35. Even though this will probably get me flamed to death I just have to ask;

    Why haven't you Americans just scrapped that 2nd Amendment already?

    Recent events made me wonder about that (again) so I looked it up on the interwebz, the amendment I mean. After reading some about it and the times in which it was concieved I can understand why it was made in the first place. This law indeed made sense, over 200 years ago! I can't see any reason for it today.

    I see no reason for the US to:

    1. Enable the people to organize a militia. You already have the largest, most advanced military in the World. It doesn't even use Humans anymore to do the fighting.

    2. Have the people participate in law enforcement. I can't believe that is something you'd actually want.

    3. Deterring tyrannical goverment. Even though, arguably, the US goverment have done (and perhaps still do) some pretty questionable things, they seldom seem to do it to there own people.

    4. Repelling invasion. See number one. Nobody is going to invade you. It'd be suicide!

    5. Suppressing insurrection. There's no more slavery. And it seems to me that you're only arming those elements amongst your population from which you should really fear it, like right-wing anti-goverment groups and suchs.

    6. Facilitate a natural right of self-defense. I believe this point is actually still valid. But only because everybody else is carrying.

    So that leaves what, the NRA? The interwebz tells me the NRA has a little over 4 million members. It also tells me that there are over 312 million Americans. So how come you let yourselfs be pushed around by this small group?

    And why would you want to own a gun for any other reason than to take life. I mean, lets not kid ourselves, a gun is a tool that was created for just one thing, to kill. It can't even be used for anything else. It's not like, for instance, a knife, which was created for cutting things and can unfortunately also be used to cut people.

    Sorry if this is starting to sound like a rant, and perhaps it is, but the reason this is bugging me so much is that it is making America less cool. And unlike many of my countrymen I've always liked America. I visited it many times and just can't help but be enamoured with American culture. But this gun thing, it definitely makes America at least 20% less cool.

    You do realize that this is a big part of why a large part of the world still thinks Americans are cowboys, right? It's so much a part of your culture that tragic news like the recent school shooting doesn't even surprise anybody over here. I mean, everbody thinks it's wrong and sad and our hearts go out to the people who lost loved ones but it is what we've come to expect from America. It's part of the picture.

    America; Coca-Cola :), Rock and Roll :), Man on the Moon :), Star Wars :), Mass shootings >:(

    It makes me sad because I like America. And I want to go on liking America but stuff like this makes it so damn hard.

    Of course this all comes from someone who lives in a country where the only people who can legally carry guns are soldiers, cops or wildlife rangers. It's even illegal for me to own a double edged knife larger than the palm of my hand.

    1. 1. We were never supposed to have a standing Army. All able bodied men from 17-45 are part of the US militia as defined in 10 USC § 311.
      Additionally all legal inhabitants of my state are part of Florida's militia per Article X, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution.

      2. There's nothing about the Second Amendment that allows for citizen police.

      3. This is still very important. For one thing, many people in government want to take away our Second Amendment rights (which as Americans we believe—or are supposed to believe—is a human right, not one granted by government). That's tyranny. And where does it end from there? They already infringe on the First and the Second, and they've moved to infringe the Fourth with the Patriot Act and warrantless wire tapping.

      4. While unlikely, it is still possible to be overrun.

      5. First of all, being anti-government is a good thing. Right wing doesn't mean you want to abolish the government, it just means that you believe that, for the most part, you can govern yourself. You don't need Bloomberg to decide how much sugar you can drink for example. Second, there are still plenty of types of discrimination in this country. And third, suppressing insurrection isn't a Second Amendment issue. If anything, the Second Amendment allows for insurrection. That's why it lays out that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Our Supreme Court has left the work militia unbounded—i.e. it applies to one person or multiple people. Anyway, it doesn't protect a nanny state, or a police state. It protects a free state.

      6. It is valid. And it is necessary not because everyone is carrying, but because there is always someone in the world that wishes to do harm to others. And not everyone is able to protect themselves without a weapon.

      7. The NRA has 4.5 million members (it has spiked up since the recent shootings). There are plenty of people that are interested in guns but aren't members. My dad isn't a member and he's had guns since he was young. I've had guns for years and only recently became a member.

      8. This is a point everyone gets wrong. I carry a gun with me every day but I don't want to take anyone's life. I hope that I NEVER have to do that. I own a gun to protect me and my family from those who want to take away ours. Also, guns do have useful purposes. Hunting, protection, etc.

      Here's a perfect example. My friends and I went to a national park. There was a law that allowed carry in national parks, but it was under appeal, and the ban was continued during the appeal. The ban was later reversed.

      Being law-abiding citizens, we disarmed ourselves. Leaving our guns secured in a vehicle, we went for a hike. We planned to camp, but when we got a few miles in, we heard a heavy animal waling along the ridge. We saw a cougar print along the trail so we knew what was then stalking us. We tried to scare it away, but it must have been hungry so we abandoned our camping plans and turned back, with only knives to protect us. We got closer together to appear larger and more formidable. I had been a good distance ahead, and so I was probably the most likely target. I was lucky. We made as much of a ruckus as we could. Normally cougars don't stalk people for a distance. They usually only attack if there's an opportunity. Without a gun we were sitting ducks. We just got lucky it didn't attack or ambush us.

      9. If anything, being able to own guns should make us more cool. That means that we support people's right to life and we believe that people are, for the most part, trustworthy. If anything makes us uncool, is that there's a bunch of people who don't think our natural rights mean anything.

    2. Thx for taking the time to formulate a complete anwser to all my points, I sincerely appreciate that.

      I must point out though that the points I stated are what I understand historians believe to be the most likely reasons for the 2nd Amendment to have been created over 200 years ago. And I understand that the actual document doesn't necessarily say anything about them. I just tried to make a case about that those reasons might have been valid 200 years ago but no longer today. Some of your anwser gave me the idea that I should perhaps have been more clear about that.

      However, even though I respect your opinion, I can't say I understand it.

      The way you talk about "people in government" and your government in general suggests to me that you somehow view your government as some sort of external entity, not part of the american people. Isn't the idea that every American, no matter what part of society they were born into, could one day be president, part of American culture? Isn't your government made up of people just like you? I understand that you don't always agree with what they do. I often don't agree with what my government does. But that's why every 4 years you get the chance to kick them out if they screwed up, right? It's just that I get the feeling that perhaps many Americans feel that as soon as someone gets into the inner circle of government they somehow instantly turn into evil scheming b4stards. I just find that very hard to believe.

      And yes, there wil indeed always be someone, somewhere, in the world who whishes to do you harm. For most of them you've got your awesome military (and seriously, nobody is going to overrun you, it would take several countries working together and then still only maybe, the chances for that are so small it's beyond absurd). As for those that happen to live in your own country. I simply can not understand how making it easier for those people to get a weapon makes you more save. It just forces the situation. Now you have to carry a gun to feel save. And then they'll have to get bigger guns and so on. It just doesn't make sense to me.

      As for hunting, that's why humans invented Animal Husbandry.

      And though I do think a strong argument can be made for carrying a weapon when going into the wild to protect yourself I can't help asking why, if you know that there are dangerous animals, you would choose that part of the wild to recreate?

      I honestly believe you when you say you don't want to take life and that you hope that you never have to do that. But the fact that you own and carry a gun suggests to me that you think it very likely that one day you might have to. And that scares me.

      I know there are people here in my country that might mean to harm me. But because I also know that the chances of me encountering an actual gun on the streets are so small I don't feel the need to own a gun or any weapon. Would it surprise you to hear that I've never even seen a real gun in my life? Unless you you count those windbukses you get to shoot cards with at the carnival ;).

      So I just can't see how having the right to own a gun makes you save, cool and certainly not how it relates to supporting people's right to life. That just doesn't compute to me, I'm sorry.

    3. I was just stating what I have read as reasons for the Second Amendment as well, not simply the current text. But that doesn't matter much. I appreciate you and I having this discussion in a nice and civil manner.

      Our government has, for a long time, not been of the American people. Small special interest groups have the ears of politicians, and they often ignore their constituents. Sure we can vote them out (which doesn't happen very often) but not before they can do a great deal of damage to liberty.

      In my case, one of our congressmen had a poll up about reinstating the 1994 assault weapons ban, and the poll ended up being 97% against. While it's not a scientific poll, one would expect that he'd at least take it into account if he's going to post it. However, his opinions are still pro-ban, which is against the will of the people that visit his site.

      Being a politician was never supposed to be a career in this country. There are many good people in government, and many have good intentions. But the problem is that they think that they know what is better for us than we do. And most people don't pay enough attention or simply don't care. So maybe we are a government of the people still, because our politicians act the same way.

      The people who may do me harm are mostly those here. They may be criminals, or they may be people who want to take my rights away. Americans view those rights as sacrosanct, or at least we did at some point. But now there are people who freely wish to give them up and politicians who are gladly there to take them. Only, those rights are basic human rights and cannot be given up. That is what makes America great, or did. And that is the main reason for the Second Amendment. It's a hedge against tyranny.

      Animal husbandry is fine, but hunting also serves to reduce overpopulation of animals and to cut back on invasive species of animals that aren't native to their current habitats.

      As for where I choose to go into nature, I don't like the idea that I should avoid a place simply because a wild animal might be there. I've hiked in many places where wild animals dwell without a gun. But coming across an angry bear without a weapon is certainly worse than coming across a bear with a weapon. :)

      As for the likelihood of me having to shoot someone, it is probably a very small chance. I don't think it'll ever happen. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be prepared for it if the situation arises. That's one thing I think people who don't understand really don't get—I don't carry a gun out of fear. I carry it to be prepared.

      It wouldn't surprise me to know that you haven't seen a gun in real life. There are probably more people who haven't than who have.

      The cool part was more in relation to having the freedom to own a weapon if I so choose. Liberty is cool and carrying a gun is definitely safer than not carrying a gun. YMMV.

    4. Thanks again for taking the time to anwser. It's good to hear the other side of the argument. It helps me understand why there's one to begin with. Though I'm still not in your camp Joe, sorry.

      But I wonder if you and "your camp" so to speak, would agree to compromise. I'm beginning to understand that a big part of this is the need to be able to protect ones family and livelihood and I can understand and respect that. Let's be clear on this, if I myself were forced into a situation were someone would threaten to kill my loved ones and the only way for me to prevent that was to end that person's life myself, I would probably kill them dead right there. So if this is mostly about protecting ones home and family then I would agree to the right of having a gun at home. It's were a possible scenario would most likely happen. But why the need to take it out of the home and onto the streets? IMO it's the job of the police to protect you when you're in public. If something were to happen in a public place and everybody was carrying, that sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

      So, guns in your home so you can protect yourself and your family but you're not allowed to carry them in public. You've said that you believe that people are, for the most part, trustworthy. Trust the police to protect you when your not at home. Would this be a compromise you'd be willing to accept?

      As for hunting. I agree 100% that it is needed to reduce overpopulation and cut back invasive species, no argument there. However, I also believe that it's something best left to the people who's job it is to do that, wildlife rangers. Any civilians who feel the need to work on their aim can go to the shooting range, right?

      Lastly, one thing you said sounded particularly contradictive to me. You say; "That's one thing I think people who don't understand really don't get—I don't carry a gun out of fear. I carry it to be prepared." And you're absolutely right, I really do not understand this. You say you're not afraid. But in my humble opinion, if you feel the need to prepare for whatever situation, that suggests to me that you fear that scenario might come true. It might be a more subtle kind of fear but it's fear nonetheless.

    5. "But why the need to take it out of the home and onto the streets? IMO it's the job of the police to protect you when you're in public."

      Easy answer to that one. At least 90% of the police I've dealt with in my lifetime, or have seen deal with others, have been the most horrible, uncaring, corrupt, constitutional shredding human beings I've yet met.

    6. No problem. As I said, I enjoy our discussion. And I don't feel a need to sway you. I'm just trying to explain my side. So let's continue.

      Well, the police's job isn't actually to protect you but society as a whole. It may say "to serve and protect" on their cars and uniforms, and they should in most cases. But the Supreme Court has laid down many decisions that say that the police have no duty to protect any particular citizen.

      And even if they could, there's not a police officer near me 24/7. In the US, there are 395 people per police officer. It's simply not possible.

      I believe that most people are trustworthy. And I do trust the police to handle a situation when there are police available. But I can't accept your compromise because they can't be everywhere—and I don't want to live in a police state where they are everywhere. I trust people with guns. There's a lot more of us than there are police. My state has more concealed weapons permit holders than there are police in the entire United States, by about half. And no major shooting has occurred in my state (that I can find a reference for anyway).

      As for fear, I don't think it's fear. I live in Florida. I stock up water in my house during hurricane season. I'm not afraid that a hurricane is going to hit me (they always miss my particular area thankfully), but I want to be prepared in case it happens. I find having my gun on me to be no different. I would say that if I were afraid, I'd never leave the house without it. And I do on occasion.

    7. Sorry Joe, but I think you are just a part of the problem. No one wants to take your guns away .....repete.....no one wants to take.......oh, what's the use.....it will still be your mantra. It's the large magazines, semi-auto carbines that are useless for hunting or target shooting, but make fine weapons for close range combat. It's lack of scrutiny before purchase, the hundreds of millions of handguns, etc. that is problematical. I know you have heard all of this before.

      The most recent school shootings were committed by someone who used part of his mother's private arsenal to kill her, then head for school. His mother may have been, in your words, "for the most part trustworthy, more cool & supported people's right to life". I guess we'll never know.

      When I lived in rural Alberta I owned a single shot .22 rifle at age 14, a bolt action .22 repeater at age 16, and a bolt action .303 and double barreled 12 gauge at 18. All of these weapons perfectly suited their legal purpose. Because I now reside in an urban area, I no longer possess any of them. We in Canada, especially in rural areas, live among at least as much wildlife as you but do not feel overwhelmed by nature on a hike.

      So happy you survived your near miss with the unseen cougar.

    8. Sorry Tom, but you honestly have no idea who I am and you definitely don't understand my opinions, so please don't try to put words into my mouth.

      I've never been one of the people who say they want to take my guns away. But you cannot tell me honestly that there is no one who doesn't want to take them away.

      Diane Feinstein has said that if they had the required votes in 1994 she was prepared to say Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in. And I'm sure Carolyn McCarthy wouldn't have complained. Neither would the Brady Campaign. The only reason they don't is that it's political suicide.

      So no, no one wants to take my guns away because they can't. They just want to slowly erode my freedom to purchase new weapons because they think something is scary. There are plenty of more powerful semi-auto rifles that are not listed in the ban.

      So they go through these stupid, let's ban pistol grips, and mag capacities, etc. routines in the hope that it becomes so annoying or useless that there's no point in having them anymore.

      The problem with that is that it doesn't matter how many rounds I have, how many my magazine holds, what type of weapon I own, or even how fast the rate of fire is. I'm still going to shoot ZERO people who aren't trying to kill me or my family.

      And these small caliber semi-auto weapons with large magazines ARE perfect for close range combat. They're excellent for home defense because over penetration is much less of an issue. And they're more accurate than a handgun, so you're going to hit what you're shooting at. They're great self-defense weapons.

      As for the most recent shooting, it were committed by a crazy person who misused firearms. His mother in MY words is "a terribly irresponsible gun owner. She knew her son had mental problems. She should have either locked up her guns, or, better yet, stored them with a reliable friend or in a safety deposit box, etc. so that her son could not have access to such weapons."

      As for your use of weapons, that purpose in Canada is defined as hunting. That purpose in America is defined as necessary for the security of a free state. Which, as the Supreme Court has ruled, is a hedge against tyranny and personal protection along with hunting, etc.

      I was not overwhelmed by nature. I was just unprepared because some people were fighting a law that basically said that if I can carry in a state, I can carry in a park within the state.

      Since you seem perfectly happy to insinuate that I am somehow a wuss because I walked away from being attacked by a cougar, tell me, Tom, what would you have done? A cougar on a ridge above me has the upper hand when I am standing on a two foot wide path with a 300 foot drop on the other side carrying two tents and a backpack, especially if that cougar isn't scared as easily as they normally are. The animal doesn't matter, the point is that there are things that can kill you in the woods, especially if you're unarmed. Would you feel so confident walking into a grizzly bear den? Or how about standing among a pack of hungry polar bears? We're humans, we're not invincible.

      And you know what? You're welcome to stay in Canada where the gun laws suit you. I am, however, an American citizen. So I'll stay here and keep fighting to keep the rights that I was granted by being born and that I maintain by being a good, honest person.

    9. Would you be able to steer me in the right direction so I may look at the list of weapons and components they want banned or controlled.

      Can you explain to me why anyone other than the military have a need or use for assault weapons. (I would prefer something more than its my rights as that sound like 19th century response.)

    10. Look up Diane Feinstein's bill.

      Can you explain to me why anyone needs a baseball bat? It's not for survival. It's not for hunting. You really can't do much with it but play baseball. It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights.

      Also, these "assault weapons" that they want to ban are no different than a regular semi-automatic hunting rifle. They aren't automatic like the military M16 and M4 they are based on.

    11. AK47, Armalite M15 carbine, Steyr AUG and Belt-fed semiautomatic firearms: All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms including TNW M2HB.

      Sporting shooters or game hunters would have no need for that style of weapon to my knowledge and has no pracaticle use other than military purposes, so why would anybody require them.

      "They aren't automatic like the military M16 and M4 they are based on" your saying. That BS look at the above examples above, I'm ex military so don't BS me about these weapons being as you put it "no different than a regular semi-automatic hunting rifle".

    12. You read any Mathew Reilly books? You could give Scarecrow a run for his money with your gun knowledge ;)

    13. No I have not however he appears to be the style of ficton writter that I would enjoy reading and you can be sure that come Monday I'll be heading to my local library to get my grubby little hands on one of his novels. Thank you for pointing him out to me.

      Small arm weapons and there tabulated data was a requirement of my trade whilst serving my country and somethings just dont leave you even after you may no longer require that knowledge.

    14. Since you clearly don't understand what an M4 or an M16 is, I'll tell you, Mr. Ex-military guy. Just like your standard AR they fire 5.56. But they have select fire capabilities. They generally come in two variants—safe/single shot/three round burst or safe/single shot/full auto. The AR only comes in safe/single shot. You know that semi-automatic means that you shoot a single bullet per trigger pull, right?

      So I don't consider an AR-15 an assault weapon. They're not full-auto or three round burst. And again, hunting is not the sole reason we are allowed the right to bear arms in this country, so your point is really just irrelevant. The Supreme Court has upheld that time and time again.

      And sporting shooters often use AR-15s in competition. So your point there is bunk too.

      An AR-15 is no different than, say, a Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle, which is a .223 semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting at least a 20 round magazine. One is banned under Feinstein's bill and the other is not. What's different? The AR has a pistol grip. There are plenty of other .223 semi-automatic rifles that people use for hunting. You'd know that if you were really ex-military.

      Now, most hunters prefer larger calibers since it is generally more humane. But those aren't banned either, even though they are more deadly. Why? Because they don't look scary. Also, I would argue that having a semi-auto hunting rifle is far more humane than a single shot rifle. If you make a terrible miss you can fix it quickly, instead of leaving the animal writhing in pain while you reload.

    15. JoeSC, from a post of yours earlier to Grumpy;
      "Since you clearly don't understand what an M4 or an M16 is, I'll tell you, Mr. Ex-military guy. Just like your standard AR they fire 5.56. But they have select fire capabilities. They generally come in two variants—safe/single shot/three round burst or safe/single shot/full auto. The AR only comes in safe/single shot. You know that semi-automatic means that you shoot a single bullet per trigger pull, right?"
      You clearly implied he didn't know what he was talking about with firearms. I'll tell you something I've noticed. I've read quite a few of his posts now over the last few weeks.
      I've not served in the ADF, so what I know is largely picked up from reading, and a couple friends I've have/had that have served. But I also take notice at times.
      I hope Grumpy won't take offense to my observations of him.
      I've noted a couple things I've seen him say, about his army career, and had a think a bit of a look into it. I've known people say they've served, and I've generally been fairly good at picking if they're telling the truth or are liars. Most returned vet's that are capable of openly talking about it, don't carry on like they're a hero. Grumpy hasn't done that, and only given info that was relevant to the talk.

      He has a 4 year old son. (so he's probably too young for Vietnam era)
      He has had a military career, and is now retired.
      He mentioned in a different thread, he'd used, or had a Parker Hale 7.62. This is where my knowledge helped me work out he's telling the truth, and probably what his job was. That was not a 'run of the mill' weapon in the ADF, so I looked it up, wondering if he was BS'ing about being in the Aus Army.
      If you look it up, you'll find the Parker Hale 7.62 was the Aus Army's sniper rifle, up to the late 90's.
      He was most likely a sniper. Otherwise he'd have had either an L1A1 SLR, or maybe a M16A1, if it was up to the late 80's. After that he'd have said what we now use, the Steyr, or F88 Austeyr to be exact.

      If you know what Australian snipers have seen combat action in the last 20 to 30 years, it is very likely to be with our special forces. Likely SAS, maybe commandos. IF you know anything about our SAS, you'll know they're every bit as good as your SEALS. (if not better ;) There is a very good reason that's who your military always asks us to send over first.
      IF that is the case, Grumpy may well rather not respond,
      but he'd have been instructed on more weapons then you've probably even seen. So when a 'weekend warrior' as you say that someone that probably at the very least was a sniper in the ADF, and quite possibly more, it is rather absurd you think you know more about firearms. If you think he doesn't know an M4 from an FU2, then you're out of your depth mate, by a long way.

    16. Then why would he have the opinion that an AR is somehow different from a Ruger Mini-14 for example?

      I'm not a weekend warrior, or an armchair commando. I don't have a military background. I've just been shooting and using guns for about twenty years or so. And I know that there's no difference between an AR and any other semi-automatic .223/5.56 rifle. It's just more customizable (at least at a cheaper cost, and by the user).

      Where I come from, the military supports our right to have weapons. Why? They swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and they want those rights when they get out too. And they believe that a free citizen should have those rights as well.

    17. Go read it for yourself. His first post made the point certain weapons are not needed by civilians. You carried on saying he didn't know what an M4 or M16 is... with this little gem;
      "So I don't consider an AR-15 an assault weapon"
      He didn't mention your BS straight up, because that was your BS, not what he was saying.

      Some background on the AR-15, since you seem to be arguing that it's not a weapon of war, but a 'civilian use' firearm.
      From Wiki;
      "The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963.[8] Although the name "AR-15" remains a Colt registered trademark, variants of the firearm are independently made, modified and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers."

      So it was built and used for the military. Bit of a problem then fitting with your assertion that it's not an assault weapon, don't you think?

      I agree that there is little difference to a Ruger Mini 14, that's why that should be on the ban list too. It's not needed by the average civilian. Unless there is a legitimate reason, and I obtained the correct licensing, I couldn't purchase one here. So what, I don't need one.

    18. I'm well aware of the history of it. That doesn't make it an assault rifle.

      If I were in the military, I would rather have a weapon capable of burst (not full auto) if I were in the business of actually assaulting people.

      They developed the 1911 for the military, that doesn't make it an assault handgun. In fact, the version I own even includes the tweaks the military made after using the original design for a bit. It includes the curved mainspring housing for example because that helped the weapon point better.

      And my dad has the weapon they currently use. Well, a Taurus based on the Beretta M9. It's not an assault handgun either.

    19. Try reading the other comments. I say it on every doc even sorta about guns.

    20. Rally dude, you basically just said, "I'm not one of those people that thinks they want to take my guns, but they want to take my guns." Of course their is some extremist nut out there that wants all guns gone, I would myself if I thought it was really possible and no one would have them. But of course that isn't possible and even the most liberal democrat knows this, bad guys will have guns and so good guys need them too- we get it. That in no way justifies however the loop holes we have concerning back ground checks, the way we permit private sales which lead sometimes to huge straw-man purchases, or high capacity clips and semi-auto assault rifles. You can call it silly but the facts are that during the Sandy Hook shooting when someone was speaking to 911 in the back ground you can hear over thirty rounds go off in thirty seconds, thirty rounds. That is thirty potential dead children man, d@mn your rights. There is no excuse, people shouldn't die so you can have a hobby.

      Our rights have been eroded, just not in the way or by the people you claim. It was the neo-con republicans after 911 that truly eroded our rights with the so called patriot act, its the current on going drone strikes that kill innocent civilians in our name half way around the world without our consent, its the loser that flips and grabs that high capacity semi-auto you refuse to admit facilitates destruction and death and takes our children- enough!!

    21. wald0
      that was almost exactly what i wanted to say. only much better than i could have.

    22. Hah, you two are about two thirds of the group that argues against logic with me on this site. Thought you were the same person this whole time. Too bad you're not really, only means there's that many more, worse than worthless people out there.

    23. First of all, I agree about all of the BS that has happened since 2011. I've been saying that stuff for years.

      And no, I didn't say that. I say I'm not one of the nuts that thinks that it's even possible. But if they think they could, they would.

    24. Rally dude? You just said you are an extremist nut. LOL

      "Rally dude?... Of course their is some extremist nut out there that wants all guns gone, I would myself if I thought it was really possible and no one would have them."<---- you

      Sorry, I know I pick on you a lot, but you're just sooo wrong all the time, haha. And if it's not obvious enough, I really don't like people who infringe on others freedom (or would if given the chance).

    25. If I respected your ridiculous attempt at insulting me it might matter to me that you say your "picking on me", but to be honest I hadn't noticed. I mean literally, I hadn't noticed. Have we been in an argument or debate lately? Which doc.?, I honestly don't think i have spoken to you or had you address me ever until now. Anyway, so you couldn't understand my point obviously, why doesn't that surprise me? I rest my case. By the way, if you sort this thread by best rated first you will see that the top five comments are right in line with mine, one is even an insult aimed at you specifically which got 9 likes- does this tell you anything?

    26. Yea, it tells me I'm about right when I say around 80 - 90% of the population are completely illogical sheep. Thanks. And where was your retort to this?

      Rally dude? You just said you are an extremist nut. LOL

      You said...
      "Rally dude?... Of course their is some extremist nut out there that wants all guns gone, I would myself if I thought it was really possible and no one would have them."<---- you

      Forgive me if I missed it, but saying you don't respect me is not a defense of why you said you're an extremist nut. Actually that says a lot. It's a lack of respect that makes you think you have the right to take away others freedom.

    27. So why not work to legalize drugs and explosives? PS No body cares who you like "Dude" RALLY!!! LMAO what a putz.

    28. Who said I wasn't? And if you think any free thinking person cares about what you or the rest of the flock believe they think, you are sorely mistaken.

    29. JoeSC
      what would you have done if you had your gun in that park? would you have killed that animal? did you stop to think that it might have offspring that is was defending? you were in its house uninvited and it might have felt the need to protect itself. see both of us can play the what if game and appeal to emotion. all i see is that without a gun the situation was resolved with zero deaths. at the low cost of inconveniencing your hike. your story does more to support my case than yours. sad that you do not see it that way.

    30. Umm, I would have continued on my hike to a safer area and if one couldn't be found I would have left. I wouldn't shoot it simply because I saw it, if that's what you're implying. I'm an animal lover. To be quite honest, I don't hunt. The only thing I'd really consider hunting is wild hogs because they're an invasive species. I have no desire to kill a deer, or kill anything. Hell, in my house I generally try to capture bugs to put them outside instead of killing them.

      If I had a gun in that situation there still would have been zero deaths. I didn't see the cougar, and it didn't attack. And I had a large knife with me, so it probably still would have been killed, and I might have died too. So without a gun and with an attack it probably would have been two deaths.

      So my story doesn't support your case. It's just a story about why a gun is a useful thing instead of simply a killing machine like people want to believe.

    31. "It's just a story about why a gun is a useful thing instead of simply a killing machine like people want to believe."

      See, no one actually thinks this, though you have convinced yourself that they do. We all know very clearly that it is people that kill, that they can do so with a rock or a knife and do not need a gun, and that guns are a tool, meaning they are but a means to an end. This is why we don't want 99% of your guns, we simply want the ones that give the sickos such an advantage that they can do unbelievable amounts of damage in such a short amount of time. No one has any use for them anyway, except as a hobby. You don't need one to defend yourself in any realistic situation that arises in our society unless you are law enforcement or military, they are useless for most hunting and even if they can be used there are much better guns made for that purpose that we don't want to touch, simply wanting to collect them or exercise your right to own one is just not good enough reason to have them available to the general public- children are being killed! You can't possibly defend your self from the government for long with one, they have more of them and better ones at that- plus other methods of control that trump any gun - besides, its not the eighteen hundreds anymore, i don't think an armed insurrection is the answer anyway. We also want everyone buying any gun to have to go through a back ground check- period. What could possibly be wrong with that? And we have to end private sells because like I said, everyone has to go through a back ground check at the point of purchase and we need a record of who bought what as well.
      Now as far as I know this all Obama is pushing for, what's wrong with it? It will not stop you from having guns, shooting guns, collecting guns, etc. It doesn't leave the good guys defenseless at all, it makes us no more subject to oppression or coercion than we already are. If people just must shoot high capacity, semi-auto assault rifles why cant there be licensed, controlled shooting ranges that have them available for shooting? People go pay a fee and get to shoot until their heart is content, then they turn the gun in and go. In fact such places already exist if I am not mistaken.

    32. There is an irrational faction of those in your camp who believe that NONE of that is the domain of the individual.

      Second, the problem is they choose to ban weapons where there are many similar weapons and other, much more effective and dangerous weapons.

      There are plenty of mag fed, semi-automatic .223 rifles that are not up for banning. The only different between them and an AR-15 for example is the way you hold it, or the way things can be mounted to it. It's not logical.

      They put it out there, making sure to note that they're semi-automatic, which makes the uneducated public think that they spray bullets. Why? Because politicians who want to get this thing passed say so. They don't spray bullets. They're effective defensive weapons. They're reliable and accurate.

      That is why I find such bans stupid. I don't mind background checks. But I don't want to be forced to pay for them. I'd much rather only sell my weapons to people with CCWs. I'm responsible. If I were to engage in a private sale, I wouldn't sell to someone without one. I also don't want a record, because it is none of the government's business and it is illegal in my state to have a gun registry.

    33. Oh, wow! Man were you ever lucky on your hike through that park. Damn nature, you scary!

      *edit* Apparently the sarcasm in my comment was lost on some who read this. Believe me, sarcasm intended.

    34. Thanks. Nature can be dangerous. But that's not going to deter me from visiting it. :)

    35. I'm afraid my sarcasm was lost in translation. I have hiked & camped for decades in the wilderness of Canada & The U.S. & have never needed a gun to defend myself against nature.

      Regardless of the creatures in the wild, they are more afraid of you then you of them. Be sensible & practice smart behavior with your food will camping. Common sense goes a long way when encountering a potential threat in the woods.

      Lucky for that elusive cougar, if a group of hysterical people with guns encountered a similar situation, most likely something or someone would have been injured or died. The result of your group hiking without guns was that no animal or person was injured or killed.

    36. I had a feeling that was sarcasm. The woods ARE a dangerous place. Plenty of people die from various things in the woods. I'd rather have a gun than not.

      Yes, common sense does go a long way. But one cannot account for every animal in the wild. That's why they are wild animals. Perhaps you unknowingly enter its territory, or shelter. You can probably get out safely, but if you're hemmed in without realizing it, you're in trouble.

      I've hiked for decades as well—and so have the other two people who were with me—and have never come across a situation where I needed a gun. However, I have been in situations where it would have been nice to have one if the situation turned out differently.

      I often hike in areas where there are no tourists. And this cougar wasn't drawn by improper food storage (we didn't make it to the camp site).

      If a group of hysterical people were in a similar situation, perhaps they would. But we are not a hysterical group. We were quite calm for the situation thanks. Please don't assume that I'm crazy because I own a gun. Since we never saw the cougar anyway, we would have never shot it. So the result would have been the same in either case, thanks. I would rather not shoot anything. I don't hunt, although I respect that right, and as I've said I often take insects out of my house when I find them.

      I don't like killing. But if it's it or me, I'm killing it.

    37. "Lions and tigers and bears oh my!"

    38. What you don't know about cougars would fill a book. What you don't know about guns would fill a warehouse.

      If you were to have had a gun, you would be more likely to have shot yourself with that gun than for that cougar to attack you - if it were a cougar. There have been 38 confirmed cougar attacks in North America 2001-2010. Included in those attacks are 4 deaths. Accidental gun deaths number about 600 a year alone. Accidental injuries from guns run to 15000 a year.

      When I go into the wilderness I have very much more to fear from gun-toting hikers than from any cougar.

    39. "if it were a cougar. There have been 38 confirmed cougar attacks in North America 2001-2010. Included in those attacks are 4 deaths. Accidental gun deaths number about 600 a year alone. Accidental injuries from guns run to 15000 a year."

      Quick! Take my guns so those 600 Darwin award winners can come back!!!!

      I think before trolls start posting things I dread, I should put out there that I don't own as much as a bb gun. However, I feel it is important to fight for everyone's freedom, not just my own.
      Oh and, what you don't know about freedom could oppress billions.

    40. What you don't know about opening your mouth is that you shouldn't.

      First, I was born, raised, and still live in FL, which is one of the last places on the east coast that still has cougars. So I know a good bit about them (although my particular incident occurred in Tennessee).

      Second, guns are in people's possession 24/7. People don't live amongst cougars. So the rate of being exposed is far lower.

      Third, cougars rarely attack, but obviously they do, and I'd rather not take that chance.

      Fourth, there are 300 million guns in America. There are less than 50 thousand cougars. Again, the likelihood of exposure is much lower.

      You have nothing to fear from a responsible gun owner no matter where you are. I've fired thousands of rounds and haven't ever shot myself or missed a target. I've been shooting guns with my family since I was 12. I've owned but did NOT have access to a shotgun since I was 1. I shot it for the first time when I was 5 with the supervision of my family. I've owned handguns of my own for the past three years. I'm a responsible gun owner.

      I know a ton of gun owners and none of them are irresponsible or dangerous. We're all very conscious about gun safety. And that's no surprise since Florida's rate of permit revocation is 0.3%.

      Let me ask you a few questions. Do you own a gun? Know someone with a gun? Have you ever shot a gun before? If you answered no to any of those questions you don't know anything more about guns that what you can find on the internet, which means you know a hell of a lot less about it than I do.

      And I've had this debate multiple times. So I'm pretty good that that too. You have to have something to compare things to if you're going to say something is likely to happen like shooting yourself.

      So let's figure it out. To find out how likely a gun is to end up in an accidental shooting, we need to first figure out the number of guns in America. So that's easy. It's 88.8% of the population (88.8 guns per 100 people). So 278,755,668.

      So take that, and divide the number of accidental shootings and deaths by the number of guns and multiply by 100 to get a percentage. Let's add even more to your numbers. Let's say 16,000.

      (16,000 / 278,755,668) x 100 = .006%

      So .006% of guns will be involved in an accidental shooting.

      There were about 32,000 firearms related deaths in 2010.

      (32,000 / 278,755,668) x 100 = .01%

      So only .01% of guns are likely to kill anyone.

      While you think gun deaths are high, the amount of guns in this country are way higher. There's almost one per person.

      So while you may think I'm more likely to shoot myself or someone else, the numbers don't lie. I'm more likely to shoot NO ONE.

    41. "There are 300 million guns in America. There are less than 50 thousand cougars. Again, the likelihood of exposure is much lower."

      Now if that logic applies to cougars (less cougars=less death from cougars) should not the same logic apply to guns? Should not less guns equal less deaths from guns? Contrary to what the NRA preaches?

    42. No, because I can't prevent a death with a cougar. When police show up to a mass shooting, the rate of death is much higher than when an armed citizen stops it.

    43. I'm sure that happens a lot and you have reams of data to prove it. Thank goodness for armed citizens - maybe the same ones I bitch at because they can't be bothered to put their phone down while they are "driving."

    44. Not sure where you going with this but I hate anyone that can't talk and drive but continues to do so. Since I've had a license I've been run off the road more times than I can count.

    45. Is that so? Please supply me with a list of all armed citizens who have stopped a mass killing. I will be happy to supply you with a list of all armed citizens who started a mass killing.

    46. There are plenty. I actually need to get some work done today so do your own research please and you'll be happy to see what you've learned. And you'll have done it all by yourself!

      Why don't you start with the Pearl High School shooting? You don't see those reported because the media, for the most part, has an anti-gun agenda. And the deaths were low. Only two people were killed and 7 shot before the principle detained the shooter.

      Start there.

    47. Yes! That's the answer... kill all the cougars. (not women of a certain age I should remind you, the more of those the better for mankind)

      It's just plain hard not to grin when this fellow so clearly busted his own argument with his own "logic".

    48. YES! And why don't we just scrap our first amendment as well!!!

    49. The reason we American's will always keep our weapons is varied. #1 We like to believe we are free. Once America won it's freedom from England through the use of guns, acquired the land it now occupies from the people that lived on it through the use of guns. Played a very large role in saving the so called "west" ass in two world wars it simply seems to go on and on. That is external and government only. We have not even gotten into the domestic public and one can easily conclude that the men with the most /best guns does pretty well for themselves.
      Then you can go to the sixties and look at all of the examples of the government trying to ignore the will of the people sometimes with force. The real damage to society started with President Nixon proclaiming "drugs" public enemy #1. President Carter tried his best to warn us what we were becoming but with prodding and propaganda from the other party he was laughed out of office and even today gets very little respect here at home.
      Then we got Reagan and with him came his wife Nancy and together they went on some kind of propaganda tour PT Barnum could not have done a better job with. Just say no to drugs. Just say no. Catchy huh? The violence the Government has created by this absolutely ludicrous approach to marijuana and drugs is simply almost unfathomable. The "crime" these laws create leaves the common public just trying to make ends has no choice (too brainwashed to think for ourselves anymore) but to live in the middle.
      So now you have made criminals out of anybody that sells weed drugs buys either consumes either on and on. Then you add in the fact that the police departments of America mainly hire combat veterans straight back out of combat. Mix all that together and it really should not take a genius to see there might be a problem. One that could and SHOULD be solved.
      Problem is people who want a better safer less violent neighborhood seemingly do not think problems through. It was the Gov. play on the publics conscience that allowed the detrimental laws on drugs and marijuana to start with..
      Now what after the government created this mess ordinary law abiding (no matter how harmful the law) citizens are just supposed to trust the Gov. to make smart decisions and there will suddenly be no need for self defense. Ridiculous. It is not guns that are the problem you just have to think a tad bit and turn off the television /phone /tablet / computer.
      You did not like the Chinese competing in America so you outlaw opium to deal with them. Then you outlaw the marijuana to put the Mexican and Mexican American's under control. Then you outlaw cocaine to put the Black man in prison and out of the way.
      We all have heard the saying be careful what you ask for. We should also be careful of what we create. Now we are supposed to believe this is all because I go shoot at targets like deer elk bear birds hogs and gators. Stupid is as Stupid does according to Forest Gump's mother. Change the (proudly self titled WAR on DRUGS) and you will start to become a civil society until then. REAP WHAT YOU SOW.

    50. The mass shootings usually are from mentally ill people we neglect to take care of. Weapons are far more important than health care in America.

    51. Wow, seems like a child wrote that comment. Ever heard of history?

  36. I find it funny that Walmart don't like to sell more than 2000 rounds of ammunition at once, if you're going to kill people surely that's plenty. What's to stop you going to the next shop and buying the same again. Here in little old England you can't buy bullets in any supermarket, we can't even get more than 3 packets of headache tablets in case we OD on them. Quite welcome to fill your trolly with booze and fags though, it's ok to kill yourself slowly ;)

    1. Here in Aus, it's no automatic's/assult rifles, you've got to be something like a professional shooter to get a semi-auto now I believe. I have my gun licence here, you have to prove you're licenced to buy ammo. That reminds me, gotta renew my licence before april. :) I'm a member of a shooting club (target shooting), but I also grew up i the country. ;)

      While we kill ourselves slowly, we'll pay more taxes before we go. ;)

    2. I'm hoping to die in massive debt though, take that HMRC! Guns make killing too easy, point and click murder. Maybe they should ban guns and have longbows instead, something that means you have to concentrate better on the target and allows a few seconds thinking time. Mass killing would be more difficult then, not many people would manage more than a few accurate shots in a minute :)

    3. As an ex-serving member of the Army I could operate a bolt action rifle as quick as a semi-automatic rifle with more effect. It's not the weapon thats dangerous it's the person in charge of that weapon.

      I'm a staunch advocate for gun control, however when the Australian gun laws change only the honest law abiding citizens handed the then outlawed firearms in through the Goverments buy back scheme.

      I handed in one of my rifles that I paid $5000 for the Goverment gave me $2900 though there scheme. No incentive there for even the honest bloke to do the right thing. My rifle had only 17 rounds fired from it and custom built.

      All these massacres are done by disturbed individuals not by honest sane people. There is not enough being done with mental health to be able to clearly look at the signs appearing before these nutters go off. I know they must have a screw loose as if I was going to go on a rampage my rounds fired to my kill rate would be higher than they acheive

    4. I get your point but the fact remains, with fewer guns in circulation it would be more difficult for rampaging maniacs to rampage manically with guns. In the UK we just stab each other instead, we have doctors calling for an end to pointy kitchen knives and chefs saying that they don't really need them. It is sad that kids can't settle their differences with a quick scrap in the park and ridiculous that we're even discussing the end of pointy things. What next, knitting needles? In the wrong hands almost anything can be used as a weapon, doesn't mean we should have weapons easily available.

    5. You Poms are the only nation to use glass as a verb....LOL

      The problem start long before these people commit these acts of violence, we just have to look at the programs (eg. cartoons) our children are know watching, the toy we let them play with and a host of other factors in the way we have desensitised our children to violance. With the advancements made in computer games and the entertainment world, killing "the badys" has become acceptable in todays inviroment.

      I'm lead to believe that the first seven years of a child life is when their mind are at peak at being influenced by there inviroment.
      I will not buy my 4yr old son any type of toy gun, as in my opinion no gun is a toy as they all promote violence in some way.

      Gun control is a extremely important issue but lets not forget where the issue begins and look at our blatant disreguard to whats right or wrong. Ban violent computer game, greater control on what we as responsable adults allow our children are being exposed to.

    6. I know your reply is not to me, but I would like to point out that violent computer games like Grand Theft Auto and World of Warcraft are played all over the world. I don't like the life lessons taught but I don't believe there is any evidence showing a link between them and violent crime (especially mass killing sprees with semi-auto carbines). BTW, I am sixty-five years old and well past the shoot 'em up gaming age.

    7. I understand completely with your points...

      My views on many different subject have change now I have the responsability of raising a child. In no way would I suggest that violent video games are the reason these people commit these acts against humanity, all I'm saying is we are alot more desensitised to violence in all aspect of our lives and like it or not the electric babysiiter must have a role in that.

      When the gun laws changed over here in Aust, I rallied against them as they were a kneejerk reaction over one inderviduals actions. The goverment needed to appear to be pro active in solving a problem, however violence and criminal acts still occur on a regular basis.

      The major underlining factor with many of the act is mental illness however, goverments would rather use the bandaid measure to appease the voting public, rather than tackle the biggest contributing factor being metal health in my opinion.

    8. A good response, but may I say, America does not have a monopoly on crazies. They are everywhere. For most people it's just not as easy to kill dozens of people.

    9. I would never say any one counrty has a monoply on crazies or violent crime.

      It appears that the christain values the majority of the American people seem to display to the rest of the world, are to say the least hypocritical, I have no problem with people defending their family, as I would kill anyone whom tried to harm my son, but I would not need an assult rifle to do that. I also except that my training has given me an advantage over most other people.

      It appears per capita the yanks are more prone to violence than us Aussies with the limited studies I've looked at over the last 24hrs and we are not allowed to walk around with any weapon without due cause (police and armed guards) and the appropriate licence.
      It seems to work as we don't have shooting homicides on a daily basis.
      We Aussies are far from perfect however for a civilized country in the free world. I believe that we have better equiped mentally than our Yank cousins for peace. Your track record with your Presidents display that, from a "B" grade actor to the Bushes. The first sign of intelligence to enter the whitehouse came from a black asian american by all accounts.

    10. Very funny! You know we don't always glass people, sometimes we bottle them instead, whatever comes easily to hand ;) I'm not so convinced that we can lay the blame squarely at the mismatched feet of tv and shoot 'em ups, the greatest influence in any kids life are the parents. All you have to do is teach them what's real and what's not, and they're pretty good at knowing the difference between right and wrong. That starts early, knowing what hurts them and realising that it's not nice to hurt others. I know a mother that won't let her 9 year old watch the news and likes to check wildlife docs to make sure there are no animals dying/eating each other. Seems a bit extreme to me, part of a parents job is to equip their kids to deal with the world they will live in. That includes teaching them to distinguish fact from fiction. At some point kids are going to sit up all night at their friends houses watching horror flicks and yelling at the xbox, you can't always be there when they have nightmares :)

    11. It would be an empty bottle or non alcohol bottle...lol

      As I said earlier;
      My views on many different subject have change now I have the responsability of raising a child. In no way would I suggest that violent video games are the reason these people commit these acts against humanity, all I'm saying is we are alot more desensitised to violence in all aspect of our lives and like it or not the electric babysiiter must have a role in that.
      When the gun laws changed over here in Aust, I rallied against them as they were a kneejerk reaction over one inderviduals actions. The goverment needed to appear to be pro active in solving a problem, however violence and criminal acts still occur on a regular basis.
      The major underlining factor with many of these acts is mental illness however, goverments would rather use the bandaid measure to appease the voting public, rather than tackle the biggest contributing factor being metal health in my opinion.

    12. @Grumpy
      I have to confess that as a child I used to have toy soldiers, toy guns, and as an adult I have played enough violent computer games, which I not proud of.
      Once I accidentally found a handgun that was dumped in the bushes; I was disgusted picking up the damn thing and was glad that someone else took it to the police.
      I have been a witness of an act of violence (guns were fortunately not used), and I have seen plenty of results from all kinds of violence on television (which is one of the reasons I don't have one any longer). I felt sick every time.
      I find myself getting more sick on every occasion that I am confronted with violence or the results of violence, directy or indirectly. Instead of getting used to it, the opposite is happening with me: violence becomes more and more revolting to me. (Not boasting about it, just being an acute observer of myself.)

    13. @Giacomo della Svezia

      Our childhood sounds very simular as I played the same games, and as an adult I've played most of the "action" computer games also.

      My thought process was more like JoeSC's until I had to do my job for real. That change my life forever and I live with what I have done and the nightmares. I'm extremely proud that I served my country and hopefully I made a little difference.

      I'm not anti=gun however the weapon that are being debated are designed for one reason and that is to kill the enemy,they are by no means recreational/sporting weapons in any way shape or form.

      JoeSC has made a valid point about other semi auto's not being on the list and to me that beggers the question why.

    14. Thanks for your answer, Grumpy
      I suppose the bad memories will probably never go away, I hope they don't bother you too much.

      My point was only that i.m.o. being confronted with violence in games and movies at a young age does not make people more violent or tolerant to violence when they grow up. A tendency to violence has probably more to do with the way children are treated by their parents and by other children.

      The principle of firearms that are not made for hunting is what I'm opposed to, but I also see these guns are unavoidable. I would prefer if only the police and the military were allowed to carry them while they're on duty.

    15. G'day Giacomo,

      I too play 'shoot 'em' games from time to time. I actually often feel it's a 'release of tension', getting online and playing against mostly kids. (the quick littler buggers lol ;) A game is a game, anyone with a brain knows the difference to real life. I guess the same could be said about documentaries. I've watched many hours of war doco's, but its not made me more inclined to want war, in fact the exact opposite. It's help educate me on what the end results are, and how I don't want that in my part of the world.

    16. G'day mate, everything okay? : )
      I have to confess I still occasionally play a 'shoot 'em 'game as well and for the same reason.

      I' just remembered an edition of Penn and Teller's 'Bull****', in which a boy of about 16 was invited to shoot with a firearm on a shooting range. The kid played very violent games every day.
      After firing the gun once, he became upset, broke down and cried. The difference between fact and fiction was apparently too rough on him.

    17. It's my pleasure,GdS..(sorry 'bout the abbreviation,but shez a good handle mate).

      No they they probably wont, but you try to replace them with good one, I'm lucker than most my 4 yr old son is the best thing to have ever happened to me.

      I agree with all that you have said in your reply and have enjoyed reading all your other posts

      Cheers mate...

    18. Seems a little bit like some kind of variation on the English predilection for understatement, doesn't it?

    19. Maybe, but a pea shooter full of ibuprofen is enough to take a mans eye out, you know how rowdy we can get after a glass of sherry?

    20. Just stay away from the Longbows afterwards, and I'll keep my helmet on! ;)

    21. Spooky! You read my mind....:)

    22. the limit on ammo sales is for commercial purposes. ammo is a VERY low profit item at walmart. you could actually buy it there, and resell it at gunstore prices and turn a decent profit. that said, it's kind of like the lottery ticket sales at a convenience store. they make a penny on the buck on the ticket, but the "coke and smokes" you buy also turns the profit on the sale. the ammo teases the consumer in, and the display psychology usually gets them to buy something else before they leave the store. that's why auto supplies and sporting goods are ALWAYS as far as possible from the doors (and preferably, each other). if you come in to buy a specific item, however, and it's not there, the disappointment destroys the "marketing magic". if you blow your whole paycheck on my low profit item (the ammo), you not only can't buy any of the sri lankan made lace doilies i make a 200% profit margin on, but you also spoil the sale of anything when the next guy comes looking for that ammo, and there is none.

    23. Hello Harry, do you have any idea how bizarre that is, that you can head down to the shop for a box of bullets and grab milk and nappies as an afterthought? No wonder each new generation thinks guns are as ordinary a thing to own as a tv or a cat. I still can't get my head around the idea of bulk buying them either, what would you do with them all? What is there to shoot at? 2000 beer cans? a massive rat infestation? If they're so cheap its not even that people are buying them while they're on offer, they just like to have lots. We keep a cosh by our bed, that's enough for me. Even thinking of the damage that could to someones skull is enough to make me wonder if it ought not be there :)

    24. ok, ammo is a weird product from a consumer standpoint. fireams hobbyists tend to squirrel away ammo in bulk. guns are like racecars, in that certain variables being "tweaked" can result in incredibly impressive results, while variance from that "sweet spot" can give incredibly unimpressive results. that means that every arm has a particular load it shoots best, even if 50 other manufacturers make a load that has equivalent specs. when you find that miraculous combo, you tend to stock up on it, as even different lots produced by the same manufacturer might stray from the "magic combo" of components.
      if you own an arm that fires a round that is nearing obsolescence, very often the few manufacturers that still load for the "odd ball" will have VERY limited production runs of that caliber, so when you see that ammo available, it may well be the only chance you have to buy some for a couple of years. that tends to inspire stocking up some quantity in your personal inventory.
      then, you also have what most of the huge buying spree is about: speculative hoarding. do you remember the phenomena of "beanie babies"? for about a year here in the states, 'round about a decade ago, every simpleton with 20 bucks was convinced those palm sized stuffed animals had some magical power that made them valuable, and there was a huge boom of speculative hoarding, trading, and group insanity. lots of folks are buying up the cheap bulk ammo, and just squirreling it away so they can profiteer "when the ban comes" (a fear laced marketing tactic of the industry and it's pawns like the NRA). that's also why folks are buying up every example of arm that might make any kind of ban list, as market history shows when manufacture of a class of civilian arms is outlawed, the "grandfathered" existing examples skyrocket in value (as the supply is now "fixed"). when manufacture of civilian legal full auto arms was outlawed, values of pre-existing arms multiplied by 10 overnight.
      as to the availability of ammo at walmart, it's a mass marketing tradition in this country. sears was the biggest retailer of arms for a very long time. sporting firearms and ammo have been a "core item" of chain retailers for a century and a half. walmart sold firearms and ammo long before it ever stocked groceries. in the rural areas (where walmart blossomed into existence, along with most chain retailers) almost everybody owns firearms of some type, whether for hunting, pest control, target shooting and "plinking" to stave off intense boredom, or defense of farming equipment that represents their livelihood. when farmer joe needs a box of .22s to end the assault on his wife's garden by rabbits, the walton family would enjoy the opportunity to entice him to buy a set of overalls and rubber boots at the same time. when deer season approaches, they'd like his trip for .30-30s to feed the old winchester to include a chance to sell him a nice new wool hunting coat, and some boots and gloves. such marketing schemes date back to the old "trading posts" and "general stores" (only they HAD to stock everything, because the next store was hundreds of miles afield).
      as to who "needs" an ar-15, the honest answer is "pretty much nobody"... but the exact same answer applies to corvettes, porsche 911s, cigarette boats, hang gliders, RC aircraft, and 4 ft tall hash pipes shaped like garden gnomes, as but a very few examples.
      shooting is an incredibly fun sport, it is an incredibly addictive hobby. military style arms are a gas to fire (check out the vice doc here on the full auto shoot in arizona). watching a can of rootbeer explode on a fencepost a football field away can be a joyous experience far beyond reasonable expectations. there is a huge "zen" component to the sport, in that you must practice incredible control of both mind and body to produce those 5 holes in a piece of paper sitting a furlong away that one can cover with a dime. you need similar concentration and anatomical command to be able to empty a rapid fire 30 rd magazine from an AKM clone into a watermelon at 75 yds. or to knock bowling pins off a picnic table with a pistol at 25 yds. or even to knock over postage stamp sized silhouettes of game animals at 10 yds with a pellet gun.
      i'm going to avoid commentary on all the political machinations in the debate, as it has been proven long ago that if you ask 5 people "what's the purpose of the 2nd amendment?", you're going to get at least 10 answers, and most will contradict each other. i've seen the supreme court definition of it's meaning change several times (and theirs is the ONLY opinion that matters, at least in a legal/constitutional sense).
      i WILL however state that i think the "arms activists" have done some incredibly foolish "guerrilla theater" in their bids for national attention (always at the behest of the marketing lobbyists of the industry) which has destroyed the public image of firearms owners in general, and branded the owners of military style arms as "dangerous lunatics" in the eyes of those they should have been trying to win over to their view. but, as the price of an AR-15 clone has doubled since "sandy hook", it has resulted in windfall profits for the wholesale and retail sides of the arms industry.

    25. oh, and as an addendum, i might add that HUGE amounts of ammo can be "burned up" in a single shooting experience. an afternoon afield or at the range can easily go through several hundred bullets if you have a few folks involved, and you are engaged in one of the less "cerebral" arms of the sport, in that a benchrest shooter (precision slow fire target shooting aimed at achieving the smallest possible diameter grouping of 5 shots, a sport that tends to attract engineers and scientists) goes through much less ammo than a "plinker" does in a day of shooting ginger snaps from the dollar store as "action bullseyes" (they shatter into dust with a hit) with a .22 rimfire semi-auto. the local bugs and critters enjoy "cookie shooters", as it's quite a lot of "free calories" for them at the end of the day, BTW. i've gone through several hundred shots in a day with revolvers alone (though i loaded my own ammo to keep expenses low). i actually have plans to do a "torture test" on a much maligned low priced brand of pistol, by shooting 20,000 rounds through a single example and recording all failures and parts breakages (when market conditions and personal finances allow it, of course). i chose that number because it was the quantity that the us army used in pistol trials when they adopt a new arm for issue, it represents a fairly accurate "maximum expected service life" from a pistol. such a test would require buying in the largest bulk possible, just to get the lowest possible cost, as well as efficiency of time spent performing the shooting. no nefarious intent at all, yet to many it might appear i would be "stocking up for armegeddon", lol.